Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling
Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/1091367x.2014.952370
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Crust, Lee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Perry, John L.;Nicholls, Adam R.;Crust, Lee
尽管验证性因子分析（CFA，例如Marsh， Hau, & Wen, 2004）的截断值过于一般化存在局限性，但它们仍然经常被用作评估运动和运动心理学中析因效度的黄金法则。本研究的目的是调查使用CFA方法的适当性，这些截断值用于典型的多维测量。此外，我们应该研究如何重新指定模型以达到可接受的拟合，并探索探索性结构方程建模（ESEM）是否提供了更合适的模型拟合评估。使用CFA和ESEM对运动和运动心理学研究中常用的六种多维测量方法进行了检验。尽管在以往的研究中表现出了良好的效度，但这八种方法都没有达到Hu和Bentler提出的截止值。改进后的ESEM模型在所有测量中都具有拟合性。总之，我们认为本研究中的模型不拟合表明了严格解释截止值的问题。此外，我们推荐ESEM作为在多维度量中检查模型拟合的首选方法。
Despite the limitations of overgeneralizing cutoff values for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; e.g., Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004), they are still often employed as golden rules for assessing factorial validity in sport and exercise psychology. The purpose of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of using the CFA approach with these cutoff values for typical multidimensional measures. Furthermore, we ought to examine how a model could be respecified to achieve acceptable fit and explored whether exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) provides a more appropriate assessment of model fit. Six multidimensional measures commonly used in sport and exercise psychology research were examined using CFA and ESEM. Despite demonstrating good validity in previous research, all eight failed to meet the cutoff values proposed by Hu and Bentler. ESEM improved model fit in all measures. In conclusion, we suggest that model misfit in this study demonstrates the problem with interpreting cutoff values rigidly. Furthermore, we recommend ESEM as a preferred approach to examining model fit in multidimensional measures.